Attention all leaders of corporate organisations under threat!

by Half banana 8 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • Half banana
    Half banana

    Imagine you are on the governing board of a religious organisation with around eight million subscribers and an annual income of approximately a $billion (well it used to be!)

    You are about to be handed a mass of legal cases against you for concealing your negligent practice of concealing paedophiles in your congregations---followed by the prospect of a cascade of damning publicity?

    Do you admit you were wrong and apologise unreservedly?

    Make private compensations to the victims?

    Make public statements that you were “caring” all along?

    Change your beliefs with sudden “new light”?

    Or what?

  • skin
    skin

    You would tell your congregations how wicked the world is and that this wicked world will say all kinds of lies to draw you away from the congregation . Its all apostate lies so don't be mislead...

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    You call your lawyer.

  • Half banana
    Half banana

    I think resigning would we one option and leave the others to sort the mess out.

  • rebelfighter
    rebelfighter

    Is there a country with zero JWs and zero extradition, that is where the GB should head hide out for the remainder of their life.

  • schnell
    schnell
    I think resigning would we one option and leave the others to sort the mess out.

    There must be some reason Samuel Herd hasn't done so yet. Whatever he does or doesn't believe, how long can you make a guy go on camera as a televangelist if he's reluctant to do so?

  • scratchme1010
    scratchme1010

    Do you admit you were wrong and apologise unreservedly?

    Make private compensations to the victims?

    Make public statements that you were “caring” all along?

    Change your beliefs with sudden “new light”?

    Or what?

    This is not something new nor it is something uncommon. Companies and nonprofit organizations go through all this, being it by merit or not. Some times there are unfounded accusations, and sometimes they have to do some damage control.

    That's why many large corporations have their own legal departments or hire legal firms to handle everything. For starters, all members of an organization, whether they are aware of it or not, enter a legal agreement between them and the organization. The terms of that relationship have been legally determined and established before people even join.

    Then there's this thing called the burden of proof. For as many legal protections that people have today, they still have to prove that they were in fact done wrong. That's where organizations spend a lot of money in legal counsel, that is protecting themselves from being proved wrong.

    Than there's the way we live today. Even if it's completely proven that they did something wrong, in the event that the wrong doing comes to light, that is when there is no settlement with strong non-disclosure clauses, then they either make a statement, no statement, or do anything and everything possible to tarnish the credibility or reputation of the accuser. The folks at the WT are masters at doing that; that's exactly how they keep their people in place.

    Finally, even if none of that works and they still have to save face, them there's the way we live today. Chances are they will try to restore their reputation by doing something that makes them look good, or make a mockery of the entire thing (where do you think reality shows come from?). The reality is that people are not going to be outraged. they will just hear the news and immediately go to their next cheap thrill.

  • Half banana
    Half banana

    @ schnell, perhaps Samuel Herd is the first 'awake' GB member but they won't let him leave.

  • Heaven
    Heaven

    Anyone remember the Ford 'Pinto'? It's all about market competition and the money. The Pinto is the reason I will never buy a Ford product.


    Case: The Ford Pinto - Business Ethics

    Excerpt from article: "Ford knew that the Pinto represented a serious fire hazard when struck from the rear, even in low-speed collisions. Ford officials faced a decision. Should they go ahead with the existing design, thereby meeting the production timetable but possibly jeopardizing consumer safety? Or should they delay production of the Pinto by redesigning the gas tank to make it safer and thus concede another year of subcompact dominance to foreign companies? Ford not only pushed ahead with the original design but stuck to it for the next six years.

    How exactly did Ford reach that conclusion? We don’t know for sure, but an internal report, “Fatalities Associated with Crash-Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires,” reveals the cost-benefit reasoning that the company used in cases like this. This report was not written with the pinto in mind; rather, it concerns fuel leakage in rollover accidents (not rear-end collisions), and its computations applied to all Ford vehicles, not just the Pinto. Nevertheless, it illustrates the type of reasoning that was probably used in the Pinto case."

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit